08/14/2002 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 29 APPROVED MINUTES State, County, and Municipal la ws and Ordinances. The City officers are not above the law. They are as bound as the developer and th e residents. 5. The City in its pursuit of the Comprehensive Plan and considerations for future developments have not paused enough to review the impact this planning is having on current residents. The City planners must consider all parties impact ed by such planning: Government agency requirements like the DNR, Rice Creek Wate rshed, Federal Wetlands Acts, input from engineers, and most importantly the opinions and concerns of current residents. Carl Street was engineered and developed in acco rdance with the laws, rules and ordinances at the time – all of which are still relevant t oday. Extending Carl Street without the proper regard for this history and recognition of the current status is irresponsible use of municipal power. 6. The current development proposed by Mr. Gary Udhe (sic) has several realistic alternatives to emergency ve hicle access. Mr. Uhde (sic) has expressed his concern as well that extending Carl Street is not a viable opti on nor advantageous to his project. Please refer to plat designs for his development. 7. It has been mentioned by City Officials that the preference is to aff ect one person rather than a whole development. I’d like to make the point that making Carl Street a through street impacts my neighbors along its entire length by increasing traffi c in our neighborhood by giving an alternative to people looking for shortcuts out to Sunset. Lilac Street and 242 are only ½ mile away. If the City is looking for another access, why didn’t they put Thomas Street through during development of the Behm Century Farm project? There would have been no problems with wetlands, easements, ditc h clearances, nor resident property infringements. 8. Eventually, as developers are doing in Blaine, th e sod fields to the North of me will be developed. Access at that point to extent a road through to Sunset would be extremely advantageous. Udhe’s (s ic) plat provides for connection to the sod fields allowing for future access. I am a 30 year resident of Lino Lakes, infringing on my property rights using the logi c that I am the only person inconvenienced is not valid. Emergency vehicle access and neighborhood connections that are part of the Comprehensive Plan can be done without vi olating current citizens rights and property. Consider for example Mr. Udhe’s (sic) plat submissions, which show realistic emergency access through current and future development. Thank you kindly for allowing me to set the matter straight. Please keep me inform ed of working sessions and progress on the decisions the City is contempl ating about this subject. Mr. Kolstad presented to Mr. Smyser a pe tition signed by 15 resi dents on Carl Street expressing their objection to th e extension of Carl Street. Mr. Lyden stated it was his belief that Carl Street was not just a street, but it was a neighborhood and an existing ne ighborhood should not be destr oyed for the benefit of a new development. Glenn Martig, 376 Carl Street, st ated he had lived there for 16 years. He stated he was told the cul-de-sac was permanent. He stat ed the area where the power line was located was the appropriate area for a street. He agr eed with Mr. Kolstad’s comments. He stated they are an established neighborhood and requested the City not “mess” their neighborhood up. Carl Johnson, 314 Carl Street, st ated at the last Council wo rk session, he spoke against the extension of Carl Street and the City st aff stated an extension needed to go through